User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Archives

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

An image

Sorry to annoy you once more, but could you check out this image? Part of the FUR says "It is of much lower resolution than the original" which is confusing considering the size. Also, the source seems to be a book published in Bulgaria in 1941, which wouldn't be a reliable source, would it? Thanks in advance, BalkanFever

Macedonians (Greeks)

I nominated the article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macedonians (Greeks). Cheers!--

Bilateral relations

I noticed that you were part of the effort to move back the pages of bilateral relations to follow the naming guideline set by the Wikiproject. There is currently a proposal to change that guideline, so your input is welcome here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that you are active again, but have not had your say in the discussion. People are arguing that the naming guideline has no consensus to be there in the first place and as an active party in this whole mess I think you should at least comment. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Recognition

Your comment can be in the same line of this book written by an Bulgarian author? Well, in East Asia, Macedonia seems to be more known as the "ancient kingdom" of the Alexander the Great. Many do not even know the naming dispute, or the existence of the republic mainly because

1) Macedonia is not a developed country unlike many other European countries, 2) was a former socialist state, 3) wars occurred on Balkan peninsular are more hit-news.

Macedonia is 1/10 less featured in news of East Asia than Greece, or other neighboring countries though I know the main dispute is about "common English usage" in Anglosphere. Some authors that Macedonian claims as "their ancestors" are known as "Bulgarians", not Macedonians. You once said I'm clueless on the dispute, but the edit warring over the modern statue image of Alexander reminded me at that time of an absurd insistence by some extreme Han Chinese that Genghis Khan was the emperor of Chinese Yuan Dynasty, so he was Chinese, not Mongolian.

By the way, Yanni made me an involved one regardless of my will, so feel free to make a motion, "de-involved party" to Caspian blue. :D --Caspian blue 17:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is seriously treating you as an involved party. Or have you seen any submissions of evidence or proposed findings about you? "Finding of fact: Caspian blue has made weird comments during this case", that's about all I could think of.

I would sometimes wish you'd inform yourself a bit more before you comment on something, you know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, my last comment was just intended as a friendly joke, but you're saying unnecessarily a bit abrasive. I don't think I'm an (actual) involved one so do everyone (who knows what Yannis thinks?), but formality is formality and my comment was moved by the non-clerk, you. I don't comment on nothing new. Future Perfect at Sunrise, AGF please.--Caspian blue 17:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I mainly made you an "interested party", according to the broad sense Kirill introduced when I filed the case (and which IMO is much more correct and useful than the term "involved party"). After all, I don't think that an "involved party" should be a party, who has a list of evidence or fofs about his actions. This is nonsense and useless. As I have already said I think, I treated the term "involved party" as lato sensu as I could, not with the intention to "involve" people but to "invite".--Yannismarou (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that was a misunderstanding of what Kirill said, and it is most certainly not the common practice in Arbcom cases. You could have informed such persons of the case without listing them as "involved". "Involved" in Arbcom lingo really just means "involved", i.e. not just willing to play a role in the proceedings, but having played a role in the actual preceding dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I know it is not the common practice. I just thought about changing a bit common practices! As I said, I took the term "involved party" in its broader possible meaning, and I acted accordingly. Caspian had extensively participated in the discussions after the move of RoM's article. He was thus present in the actual preceding dispute and I added him/her to the list! Is he/she stricto sensu involved party or not? Strictly speaking maybe no; broadly speaking maybe yes. Maybe Kiril did not exactly mean what I understood, but, at the end of the day was any harm done? I don't think so. That's how I thought and I am not immune to criticism!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 4

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure what specifically you and I we disagree with, but it is your choice and I respect it. If there is anything I can do/say/show you to change your mind, let me know. In any case, have a pleasant day/evening. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Good faith edits :-)

I saw your message "a small thing" in the history of my talk page. I really don't know who deleted it from my talk page (the IP user left you a note). Anyway, I added those three words in edits that might be thought controversial, just so someone actually reads them first before reverting. I could also add: "Please don't revert this edit immediately without checking it" :-) Of course all my edits are in good faith, just some of them are more debatable than others, and prone to be reverted in seconds. I'll try something else next time. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 19:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello.

Hi would you be able to possibly put an IP ban on Polykastro as recently an IP (who I think is an involved user) has been POV pushing and removing evidence. Thanks. PMK1 (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Section levels

The section levels are busted after you post to my question. Look at the PD line. Can you fix it? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's strange, I noticed that too. Apparently it doesn't like the fact that the "proposed decision" was a first-level heading (= ... =), while other sections were normal second-level ones (== ... ==). I'm afraid with the quick fix I did all the levels below the "proposed decision" would have to be demoted too, which I haven't done yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Grecomans

Excuse me, what is your opinion about the discussion here. Jingby (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Conduct at WP:ARBMAC2

FPAS, I have removed this comment as it is a snide comment that is inappropriate and is only agitating the situation. If you continue with this behavior, you will banned from all the arbitration case pages. SQRT was asking legimate questions. This is an absolute final warning. You were already warned twice by KnightLago and myself. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I concur with Rlevse on this issue. Risker (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm not an involved party and I should probably stay out of this, but when someone asks "If there are involved parties, currently or in the past affiliated in any way with organizations promoting political agendas, should parties and arbitrators have the right to know? If yes, should they be a part of a case regarding encyclopedic terminology?" it sounds a lot more like "Are any parties to this arbitration current or former members of the Communist Party?" than a constructive question. To my mind, asking questions such as this on the Workshop page is more disruptive than calling it out on the Workshop talk page. In fact, I'd say that the activity of a single-purpose account created for the purpose of participating in this arbitration case is inherently more disruptive than anything Fut. Perf. has done. But maybe that's just me. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just revolting. Rlevse, if you think SQRT's behaviour is legitimate, I really can't help you. And there was nothing untoward in my question, at all. Moreover, you telling me I had been warned twice, when the last time you had personally confirmed to me afterwards you had nothing against my conduct, is very disappointing. Rlevse, how much can I trust you when I talk with you?

By the way, I would like some information about what was oversighted on that page shortly after, and why nobody was apparently blocked for whatever it was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"nothing against my conduct" is not what I said. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Got a log? I don't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a privacy issue that was addressed, and I carried it out. That's all I can say about the revision suppression (we're getting away from true oversighting as much as possible.)

As to the question, it isn't a great question, but one must remember that there have indeed been real political issues brought into Wikipedia by various editors in other cases, and some of the issues being discussed are current real-world political concerns. Risker (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So why is nobody going to SQRT's talk and explaining to him he should reword his concerns in such a way as to make a bit of sense? Why aren't these questions removed, when they clearly aren't really questions that the "parties" could possibly answer, in this form? The way his questions are worded I still maintain they are totally unacceptable. Heimstern put it quite well here: [1].

As for the privacy thing, if it was one of the usual harassment IPs who've been after me, they should have been blocked immediately and the page semi-protected, not just removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Risker, SQRT's question serves only to insinuate. There is nothing any party there can possibly answer because it is so vague, and yet it's just clear enough to imply misbehaviour without being forthright enough to accuse. Such questions don't belong on the workshop, and taking exception to someone's pointing out that fact is getting the fault in the case backward. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I do think it would be helpful if the clerks could manage the workshop a bit more actively. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether they have a sufficiently thorough perspective and understanding of what's before them. As for the main case clerk, all I see them doing is minor formatting stuff, then waiting until the bullshit level becomes unbearable, and then randomly hitting out at whoever has the misfortune of standing in their way, without apparently any insight in the nature of the disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I got the opinion of two other arbitrators beforehand and they both agreed with me. Even if we all agreed that SQRT was wrong, FPAS's response did not help the matter. SQRT is fairly new and not as knowledgeable in arb matters as the rest of us and that is how his question appeared to the rest of us. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And I maintain that SQRT's question was pure malice and trolling, with more than a hint of veiled threats of "outing" and related disruption. I can find no more charitable way of reading it, as hard as I try. I also strongly object to giving this person a newbie bonus: he invited himself in on this case; his inexperience is no excuse. In any case, inexperience is never an excuse for malice anyway. As for my response, it was measured, matter-of-fact, to the point and in no way impolite. If you found it illegitimately "snide", you must be living in a universe different from the one I live in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse and Risker's comments are in response to an ArbCom clerk's request for arbs to review the matter and give advise to them about to manage the case pages. As an experienced user, we are asking you to disengage and allow others to deal with any problems rather making comments that inflame the situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Then DEAL with the problem, fuckit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Asking", Flo? Surely you jest. This is what we call "warning under penalty of sanctions", not asking. Well, at least now it's clear to me what's going on is that SQRT is being given leniency due to his relative newness while Fut.Perf. is being held to a much higher standard because of his experience. Seems pretty messed-up to me, but at least the rules have been set up clearly. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are we saying he's new? Hasn't he claimed that he's been a long-term editor as an IP? If that's so, shouldn't he be treated as an experienced user as well? He's certainly happy to refer to policy, e.g. [2]. Newbies don't usually employ shortcuts like WP:AGF... --Akhilleus (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have thousands of edits and have been here for years, but I didn't learn how to read Wikipedia policy and write shortcuts until just a few months ago. SQRT himself claims to be a long-time editor under an IP. When I read his questions, I saw nothing whatsoever "innocent" in his thinly-veiled accusations barely disguised as questions. (Taivo (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

For those who feel SQRT was trolling, the best thing to do would have been to ignore him. Responding to trolls only gives them the attention and result they seek. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Was"?? He still is, at this very minute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Then do what Rlevse tells you to do! You know, he is judged by anybody reading him!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not, because certain people with poorer reading comprehension than yours were evidently thinking he was asking "legitimate questions". Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

FP, as for SQRT and "still is", would you care to post diffs here? Please avoid phrases like "poorer reading comprehension that yours" as that could be construed as a personal attack. Something like "some people may not understand what that meant" would be better. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please look at the continuation of the same workshop thread he initiated. He basically kept repeating the same dark insinuations with every posting the whole day, without ever saying anything concrete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at that a few minutes ago. I just got home from work. I've told him to rephrase, etc, and also to knock it off, there and on his talk page. See two posts there. I'm also trying to contact ChrisO about the one issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a formal warning to remove yourself from my talk page as well. I have no particular reason to tolerate your ill-tempered outbursts any more than anyone else evidently does. John Carter (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I will hardly have any occasion to annoy you on your page and expose myself to your ill-tempered outbursts, unless of course you should again choose to post false evidence about me on the arbitration pages, which is a thing you should avoid. You might also consider not asking me questions on your talk page in future [3], if you don't wish to hear any answers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to need cause to annoy people, considering you have been made subject to several warnings regarding your own repulsively objectionable conduct during less than one month's time. And, for the record, despite your repeated failure on my talk page to even remotely adhere to the standards of conduct, you will note that I acted responsibly and removed the material when the evidence was presented. At this point, I have to wonder whether you can point to any instance in your own recent history in which you have acted responsibly. Your apparent ignorance of even the most basic standards of conduct, as evidenced by your own recent behavior, makes such a question regretably all but unavoidable. John Carter (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Shall we cease the bickering, chaps? This discussion is getting patently disruptive, and I'm going to issue blocks if it continues. AGK 14:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I demand to be protected from abusive behaviour like this, not more and not less. Do your job. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This is now the third time I have found it necessary to protest against grossly unacceptable behaviour that I and other participants of this arbitration case have had to put up with from various rogue parties to the case. Each time, the only response I have got from the Arbcom clerks is a "warning" against myself, and no concrete action taken whatsoever against the disruptors. Something needs to be done to make arbcom cases a less intolerable experience. Those case pages ought never to have been allowed to descend into the trolling circus they have become. It would have been easy, if some people were only doing their jobs properly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am firmly convinced that most of the disruption we've seen could have easily been avoided, if only during the first two days of the case postings like the following had been consistently removed, and certain new and old editors firmly reminded of the intended nature of the case pages: from the evidence page: Radjenef: [4], [5], [6]; SQRT: [7]; Reaper: [8]; Shadowmorph: [9], [10]; Taivo: [11]; Alfadog777: [12]; from the workshop page: Avg [13], [14] and subsequent sub-thread; Shadowmorph [15]; anon [16] (whole subsequent thread ought to have been moved somewhere else); Radjenef [17] (and multiple later ones). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree for the record again with FutPerf. This case is being handled extremely poorly. The whistleblowers are being penalized, not those the whistles are being blown on. As it is, we're being asked it seems to constantly just ignore attacks on ourselves (and I really don't mean that "we" to include myself, since what I've been subject to is quite tame compared to what FutPerf and Taivo are getting these days). Eventually, one tends to snap after such things. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I partially agree, it seems that some editors in that case launched into full-blown personal attack mode, instead of adding to the case (they probably have nothing else to add) now they concentrate in attacking Fut. Perf. and ChrisO (the latest thing was the accusation that ChrisO edited the naming guideline one year ago -- while I would understand an honest question about this issue the dedication of those editrs to tarnish names of people even after the argument was dismanteled is a bit too much for me to AGF). I do think that Fut. Perf. should keep his calm better even in the face of this avalanche of accusations, he should just methodically respond and build his case (personal opinion: I think that's their objective, to make people lose it and then say "see, that guy is not civil") man with one red shoe 17:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I find myself convinced by Heimstern's comment. Future Perfect had had a bad experience with this arbitration case, and I'm sorry for that; equally, I appreciate his frustration—although I'm sure my words won't do much. From what I've heard, unfortunately, a lot of what he's been subjected to is not in itself blockable; and, even if it was, I wasn't following the situation until a few days ago. FutPerf: if you're faced with any more hostilities, my advice is to forward a link to it to User:Rlevse, the leading arbitrator for this case; it could be used as evidence for the final decision. AGK 22:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Re J.C.

Please post your interpretation of the situation in your evidence section. Don't worry about the Arbs being bogged down. I would stick to the facts and avoid editorializing. There is no need to contact John as it seems you both have differing views on the situation. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

More Re J.C.

Future, I received this email from John Carter:
"Look, I know you have claimed repeatedly that you are an academic. I have to say "claimed", because, in all honesty, the utter failure to even engage in the minimum amount of research required to do even a passable high school paper you have displayed to date forces me to call that into question. It is your responsibility as an individual to ensure that any comments you make related to anything actually deal directly with the subject at hand. It is not the responsibility of anyone else to ensure that you be made aware of relevant subjects, of which you yourself have stated you are "blissfully unaware". How you continue to see these opinions of yours, which seem to be based on nothing else but your own opinions, are still relevant to the discussion frankly astonishes me.

As you have been told before, ArbCom does not make rulings regarding content. It would have been extremely easy for you to verify that yourself, if you showed the willingness to do required research that it is generally seen as being incumbent on any academic to do in virtually anything they do. Their previous history is that they have created an advisory board such as that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration here which attempts to arrive at consensus on the subject. Whether it actually ever does arrive at such a consensus is another matter entirely. And, yes, the three admins who were selected to try to head the discussion there have all recently withdrawn from it, making that attempt at compromise basically dead until such time as other admins can be appointed to fill those positions. It should also be noted that in cases like that the same people who were arguing before the ArbCom are generally still the parties who have to make the final call in the collaboration as well. How it is that you have completely failed to even try to understand the basic history of such matters and still seemingly insist that your almost completely uninformed opinion is relevant astonishes me.

And your repetitive, almost cliche, use of "red herring" is both completely misleading, because as you have been told the things you call "red herrings" are in fact the conduct issues which ArbCom actually does deal with, as opposed to the policy decisions you seem to believe that they deal with, and only further shows that you have made little if any attempt to understand what it is you are talking about. Basically, such repetition of irrelevant cliches itself tends to make any claims you may have to be regularly involved in academia even more questionable, or otherwise speaks little if those who are engaged in that work.

Please, try to at least have a basic understanding of what is being discussed if you insist on involving yourself in such discussion. Thank you"

Is this an assessment that you would agree with? (Taivo (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC))